Talk:GFA BASIC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Amiga  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Amiga.
 

Capitalisation of GFA[edit]

Is the correct capitalisation GFA or GfA?

This page's title currently (14:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)) uses GFA. In literature relating to the Atari ST, I've often seen the capitalisation GfA, but I did a Google and I found that mostly GFA is used. Even the GFA Software Technologies website uses GFA. Was the lower-case 'f' changed to upper-case when it was ported to the Amiga, MS-DOS or Windows?

The German GfA Basic page on the German Wikipedia uses GfA.

Anyway, I have created a redirect page called GfA Basic that redirects to GFA Basic. If it is decided that GfA Basic is the correct capitalisation, then the pages GfA Basic and GFA Basic should be swapped.

Ae-a

Gfa Basic Was ported to Windows 3.1 In 1994. A small contractor consisting of 4 programmers completed the nearly finished port. A few months later Windows 95 was released and doomed the market for both the Atari ST computer and eventually, the Windows 3.1 16 bit operating system.

The last version, for Windows 2000 NT4, is GFA Basic 32 version 2.3 and was completed in July 2001.

User: ANS

Screenshots[edit]

"Screenshot of a GFA BASIC program" serves no purpose. Will delete. Palpalpalpal (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the creator of the images I think it does serve a purpose, namely to show what capabilities of eg creating a GUI program GFA-BASIC offered, and what the sourcecode looked like. Don't you agree? -- Syzygy (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)